Homilies on the Gospel of John

^3. Besides, the expression “was,” applied to the earth and to man, is not indicative of absolute existence. But in the case of a man (it denotes) his being of a certain place, in that of the earth its being in a certain way. For he has not said absolutely “the earth was,” and then held his peace, but has taught how it was even after its creation, as that it was “invisible and unformed,” as yet covered by the waters and in confusion. So in the case of Elkanah he does not merely say that “there was a man,” but adds also whence he was, “of Armathaim Zophim.” But in the case of “the Word,” it is not so. I am ashamed to try these cases, one against the other, for if we find fault with those who do so in the case of men, when there is a great difference in the virtue of those who are so tried, though in truth their substance be one; where the difference both of nature and of everything else is so infinite, is it not the extremest madness to raise such questions? But may He who is blasphemed by them be merciful to us. For it was not we who invented the necessity of such discussions, but they who war against their own salvation laid it on us.

What then do I say? That this first “was,” applied to “the Word,” is only indicative of His eternal Being, (for “In the beginning,” he says, “was the Word,”) and that the second “was,” (“and the Word was with God,”) denotes His relative Being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first; and then, lest any one hearing that He was “in the beginning,” should assert, that He was “unbegotten” also, he immediately remedies this by saying, before he declares what He was, that He was “with God.” And he has prevented any one from supposing, that this “Word” is simply such a one as is either uttered or conceived, by the addition, as I beforesaid, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say, was “in God,” but was “with God”: declaring to us His eternity as to person. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this “Word” also “was God.”

“But yet created,” it may be said. What then hindered him from saying, that “In the beginning God made the Word”? At least Moses speaking of the earth says, not that “in the beginning was the earth,” but that “He made it,” and then it was. What now hindered John from saying in like manner, that “In the beginning God made the Word”? For if Moses feared lest any one should assert that the earth was uncreated, much more ought John to have feared this respecting the Son, if He was indeed created. The world being visible, by this very circumstance proclaims its Maker, (“the heavens,” says the Psalmist, “declare the glory of God”), but the Son is invisible, and is greatly, infinitely, higher than all creation. If now, in the one instance, where we needed neither argument nor teaching to know that the world is created, yet the prophet sets down this fact clearly and before all others; much more should John have declared the same concerning the Son, if He had really been created.

“Yes,” it may be said, “but Peter has asserted this clearly and openly.” Where and when? “When speaking to the Jews he said, that 'God has made Him both Lord and Christ.'” Why do you not add what follows, “That same Jesus whom you have crucified”? Or do you not know that of the words, part relate to His unmixed Nature, part to His Incarnation? But if this be not the case, and you will absolutely understand all as referring to the Godhead, then you will make the Godhead capable of suffering; but if not capable of suffering, then not created. For if blood had flowed from that divine and ineffable Nature, and if that Nature, and not the flesh, had been torn and cut by the nails upon the cross, on this supposition your quibbling would have had reason; but if not even the devil himself could utter such a blasphemy, why do you feign to be ignorant with ignorance so unpardonable, and such as not the evil spirits themselves could pretend? Besides the expressions “Lord” and “Christ” belong not to His Essence, but to His dignity; for the one refers to His Power, the other to his having been anointed. What then would you say con cerning the Son of God? For if he were even, as you assert, created, this argument could not have place. For He was not first created and afterwards God chose Him, nor does He hold a kingdom which could be thrown aside, but one which belongs by nature to His Essence; since, when asked if He were a King, He answers, “To this end was I born.” But Peter speaks as concerning one chosen, because his argument wholly refers to the Dispensation.